{"id":148374,"date":"2006-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006"},"modified":"2017-11-05T13:32:00","modified_gmt":"2017-11-05T08:02:00","slug":"m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006","title":{"rendered":"M. Amirtham vs The Joint Director Of Medical on 5 September, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M. Amirtham vs The Joint Director Of Medical on 5 September, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED: 05\/09\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K. VENKATARAMAN\n\n\nW.P.NO. 98 of 2006\nand\nM.P.No. 97 of 2006\n\n\nM. Amirtham\t\t\t..\tPetitioner\n\n\nvs\n\n\nThe Joint Director of Medical\nand Rural Health Service and\nFamily Welfare,\nMadurai at Usilampatty,\nMadurai District.\t\t..\tRespondent\n\n\n\nPRAYER\n\n\nPetition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for\nthe issuance of a writ of  Certiorari to call for the records relating to Ref.\nNo.5740\/P&amp;D\/05, dated 28.7.2005 pending on the file of the respondent and quash\nthe same as illegal.\n\n\n!For Petitioner      ...\tMr. T. Lajapathi Roy\n\n\n^For respondents     ...\tMr. M. Rajarajan\n\t\t\t\tAddl. Govt. Pleader\n\t\t\t\t\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tBy consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final<br \/>\ndisposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.  The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition<br \/>\nfor an issuance of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of<br \/>\nthe respondent dated 28.7.2005 in reference No.5740\/P &amp; D\/05 and for quashing<br \/>\nthe same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.  The case of the petitioner is that she is running a scan center<br \/>\nin the name of M\/s. Amirtham Scans and is attached with Maternal and Child<br \/>\nHealth Center, at Thirumangalam, Madurai District.   The Scan Center has been<br \/>\nregistered under PNDT Act 1994 and it has been renewed upto 15.9.2009.  The<br \/>\nMaternal Child Health Center, Thirumangalam is a center for family welfare<br \/>\noperations  and also an approved center for medical termination of pregnancy.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.  The further case of the petitioner is that on the basis of a<br \/>\ncomplaint given by one Mrs. Phavalam, the respondent has passed the impugned<br \/>\norder dated 28.7.2005 by which he has asked the petitioner to close the scan<br \/>\ncenter and the scan center has been sealed by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. Mr. T. Lajapathiray, learned counsel for the petitioner has<br \/>\nsubmitted the following points in support of his contention that the order of<br \/>\nthe respondent is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t(a) The order of the respondent dated 28.7.2005 is only on the<br \/>\ninstructions given by the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department,<br \/>\nGovernment of Tamilnadu.  Hence, the respondent has not applied his mind<br \/>\nindependently and passed the impugned order;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b)  The respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order;<br \/>\n\t( c) though the impugned order is dated 28.7.2005,  it has been served on<br \/>\nthe petitioner only on 3.8.2005 after the closure of the scan center and sealing<br \/>\nof  the scan center on 28.7.2005;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t( d) the impugned order has been passed by the respondent without any<br \/>\nnotice and hence it is in violation of the principles of natural justice;<br \/>\n\t( e)  even assuming that the Joint Director of Health and Family Welfare<br \/>\nhas jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated  28.7.2005,  as per Section 17<br \/>\nof the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diognostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex<br \/>\nSelection) Act 1994 (herein after referred as &#8216;the Act&#8217;), the respondent can<br \/>\npass only an order of suspension or cancellation of the registration and he has<br \/>\nno power to seal the premises;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(f)  Though an appeal remedy is available under Section 21 of the Act, it<br \/>\nwill be futile exercise because the respondent has passed the impugned order<br \/>\ndated  28.7.2005 at the instances of the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare<br \/>\nDepartment, Government of  Tamil Nadu.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.  Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondent  has submitted  that (a)  the Joint Director of Medical Services, the<br \/>\nrespondent herein has power to close the scan center  (b) the impugned order has<br \/>\nbeen passed on the instructions of the Secretary to Government, Health and<br \/>\nFamily Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu which is based upon the complaint given<br \/>\nby Phavalam dated 12.7.2005.   The scan centre has been closed only to enable<br \/>\nthe  respondent to conduct an enquiry.  (c) The impugned order has been passed<br \/>\nafter serving a notice to the petitioner which was not answered. There is  a<br \/>\nremedy available under the Act by filing an appeal before the appropriate<br \/>\nauthorities as enumerated under the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.  Now let me deal with the points that have been urged by the<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner one by one.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8. Insofar as the jurisdiction point that has been canvassed by the<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner is concerned, it will be  useful to refer to Section<br \/>\n17 of the Act.   Section 17 (3) reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8221; The officers appointed as Appropriate Authorities under sub Section (1)<br \/>\nor Sub-Section (2) shall be,\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t(a) When appointed for the whole of the State or the Union<br \/>\nTerritory, consisting of the following three members:-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)an officer of or above the rank of the Joint Director of Health and Family<br \/>\nWelfare &#8211; Chairperson;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) an eminent woman representing women&#8217;s    organisation\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii) an officer of Law Department of the State or the Union territory<br \/>\nconcerned:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9.  The said provision makes it very clear that appropriate<br \/>\nauthority means an officer of or above the rank of Joint Director of Health and<br \/>\nFamily Welfare and Chairperson, an eminent woman representing workmen&#8217;s<br \/>\norganisation and an officer of Law Department of the State.  But, unfortunately,<br \/>\nthe impugned order has been passed only by the second respondent and hence, it<br \/>\ncannot be stated that the order impugned is passed by the appropriate authority<br \/>\nas enumerated under the Act.  The learned Government Advocate could not dispute<br \/>\nthe said fact. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in<br \/>\nthis regard has to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10.  As regards the argument of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner that the respondent has not passed the order independently by<br \/>\napplying his mind and he has relied upon only the instructions of the Secretary,<br \/>\nHealth and Family Welfare Department, since the order dated 28.7.2005 merely<br \/>\nstates that &#8220;as per the instructions given by the Secretary, Health and Family<br \/>\nWelfare Department, Government of India,  Tmt.M.Amirtham, Jawahar Street,<br \/>\nThirumangalam, is instructed to close the  scan center today i.e. 28.7.2005&#8221;.<br \/>\nThis sounds reasonable.  Hence, it can be safely concluded that the respondent<br \/>\nhas passed the impugned order mechanically without applying his mind only on the<br \/>\ninstructions of the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government<br \/>\nof Tamil Nadu.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t11.  The next contention of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner that the impugned order dated 28.7.2005 is passed without any notice<br \/>\nto the petitioner and hence it is violative of the Principles of natural<br \/>\njustice, has to be accepted for the simple reason that as per the impugned order<br \/>\ndated  28.7.2005, the petitioner has been asked to close the scan center on the<br \/>\nvery same date i.e. On 28.7.2005.  If really, any show cause notice has been<br \/>\ngiven to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 28.7.2005, the<br \/>\nimpugned order would have clearly stated that an opportunity has been given to<br \/>\nthe petitioner by  issuing a show cause notice  and an explanation has been<br \/>\ncalled for and the same has been obtained.  By a reading of the impugned order,<br \/>\nthere is nothing to show that a show cause notice has been given to the<br \/>\npetitioner calling for an explanation and then the petitioner has been directed<br \/>\nto close the scan center. Except the impugned order dated 28.7.2005, no other<br \/>\ndocuments have been produced before me to show that the petitioner has been put<br \/>\non notice before passing the impugned order dated 28.7.2005.  Further, it seems<br \/>\nthat the impugned order was served on the petitioner only on 3.8.2005. Hence,<br \/>\nthe argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order<br \/>\nwas passed without notice has to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is<br \/>\nthat even assuming that the respondent has got power independently without<br \/>\nreference to the other officials enumerated under Section 17(3) of the Act, the<br \/>\nrespondent has got power only to suspend or cancel  the registration and nothing<br \/>\nmore.  In this regard, it will be  useful to refer Section 17 (4) of the Act<br \/>\nwhich reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appropriate authority shall have the following functions namely,\n<\/p>\n<p>\t (a) To grant, suspend or cancel registration of a Genetic Counselling<br \/>\nCentre,  Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t&#8230;&#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) to take action on the recommendations of the Advisory  Committee made<br \/>\nafter investigation of complaint for suspension or cancellation of registration.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13.  A reading of Section 17 (4) of Pre-conception and Pre-natal<br \/>\nDiagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection ) Act 1994 would clearly<br \/>\nshow that the appropriate authority  as enumerated under the Act has got power<br \/>\nonly to suspend or cancel the registration and the appropriate authority has no<br \/>\npower to close the scan centre or seal the scan centre.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t14.  Then the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my<br \/>\nattention to Section 21 of the Act and has stated that only in  case an order of<br \/>\nsuspension or cancellation alone, a remedy is provided for filing an appeal<br \/>\nunder Section 21 of the Act which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8221; Appeal:-  The Genetic counselling centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic<br \/>\nClinic may, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of<br \/>\nsuspension or cancellation of registration passed by the Appropriate Authority<br \/>\nunder Section 20, prefer an appeal against such order to-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)the Central Government, where the appeal is against the order of the Central<br \/>\nAppropriate Authority; and\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) the State Government, where the appeal is against the order of the State<br \/>\nAppellate Authority;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t15.  Thus Section 21 clearly says that the person aggrieved can file<br \/>\nan appeal against the order of suspension or cancellation of registration before<br \/>\nthe State Government where the appeal is against the order of the said<br \/>\nappropriate authority.  Thus only in case of suspension or cancellation of<br \/>\nregistration passed by the authority, an  appeal remedy is provided for.<br \/>\nFurther since the impugned order dated 28.7.2005 has been passed by the<br \/>\nrespondent only at the instance of the Secretary of Heath and Family Welfare<br \/>\nDepartment, Government of Tamil Nadu, no useful purpose will be served by filing<br \/>\nan appeal as provided for under Section 21 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t16.  Though the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the<br \/>\nrespondent has got power or jurisdiction to pass the order, he is unable to<br \/>\nquote any provisions under the Act to say that the respondent independently can<br \/>\npass the impugned order.  Further, he is unable to point out any provision under<br \/>\nthe Act, by which the respondent has got power to close the scan centre or seal<br \/>\nthe scan centre.  Though it has been pointed out by the learned Government<br \/>\nAdvocate that the petitioner has got a remedy by filing an appeal under Section<br \/>\n21 of the Act,  within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, I am<br \/>\nunable to accept the said argument since, as stated earlier, the aggrieved party<br \/>\ncan file an appeal only against the suspension or cancellation of the<br \/>\nregistration of the scan centre and nothing more.  Further it will be an empty<br \/>\nformality to file an appeal since the impugned order itself was passed at the<br \/>\ninstance of Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamil<br \/>\nNadu, who will be an appellate authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t17.  For all the reasons stated above, I am constrained to allow the<br \/>\nwrit petition and accordingly, the impugned order of the respondent dated<br \/>\n28.7.2005 is set aside.   The respondent is directed to remove the seal<br \/>\nforthwith.  It is needless to say that, it is open to the competent authority to<br \/>\ntake fresh action, if they so desire, after following the procedure contemplated<br \/>\nunder the Act.   The writ petition is allowed.  Consequently, connected<br \/>\nmiscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Joint Director of Medical<br \/>\n   and Rural Health Service and<br \/>\n   Family Welfare,<br \/>\nMadurai at Usilampatty,<br \/>\nMadurai District.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M. Amirtham vs The Joint Director Of Medical on 5 September, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05\/09\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K. VENKATARAMAN W.P.NO. 98 of 2006 and M.P.No. 97 of 2006 M. Amirtham .. Petitioner vs The Joint Director of Medical and Rural Health Service [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-148374","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M. Amirtham vs The Joint Director Of Medical on 5 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M. Amirtham vs The Joint Director Of Medical on 5 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-05T08:02:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M. Amirtham vs The Joint Director Of Medical on 5 September, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-05T08:02:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1795,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006\",\"name\":\"M. Amirtham vs The Joint Director Of Medical on 5 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-05T08:02:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M. Amirtham vs The Joint Director Of Medical on 5 September, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M. Amirtham vs The Joint Director Of Medical on 5 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M. Amirtham vs The Joint Director Of Medical on 5 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-05T08:02:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M. Amirtham vs The Joint Director Of Medical on 5 September, 2006","datePublished":"2006-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-05T08:02:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006"},"wordCount":1795,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006","name":"M. Amirtham vs The Joint Director Of Medical on 5 September, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-05T08:02:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-amirtham-vs-the-joint-director-of-medical-on-5-september-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M. Amirtham vs The Joint Director Of Medical on 5 September, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148374","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=148374"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148374\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148374"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148374"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148374"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}